args

The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

I will supply an affirmative burden. As well, understandably, a system more ideal than voting that I will propose will not only be principally more ideal than voting, but also applicable to implement. Basically, the more ideal system I propose entails the use of more vigorous debate. Simply, instead of halting a debate before it comes to a conclusion and then voting, the House and Senate should COMPLETE a debate in progress. For example, let us assume federal lawmakers were considering whether or not to implement a law regarding universal health care. Likely, most of the democrats in congress would vote for it, while the republicans the contrary. However, some type of debate would be pursued regarding the particular bill, but this debate, likely, would not come to a conclusion. That is, both sides (proponents and opponents of the bill) have not reached any type of mutual conclusion. Logically, if a debate were to be pursued vigilantly, with everyone having the chance to debate and create rebuttals against other claims, congress would be able to deduce, with mutual agreement, a shared conclusion to the bill. However, my point is, with voting, there is no mutual agreement throughout congress, meaning that, for a particular bill, the "correct" side could be in the minority OR the majority. Let us assume briefly, that there is a vote in the Senate that comes to 60-40; my point is, perhaps 60% of the people in the Senate are wrong on that issue. Simply because a majority rules in favor/opposed to a particular bill, it by no means declares them right. Therefore, my proposed view of establishing federal laws entails the theme of mutual agreement being reached upon the conclusion of a debate, in which those that turn out to be incorrect on a particular take of a bill realize that their logic is flawed. Through vigilant debate, with the goal of politicians being to establish truth, mutual agreement can be obtained. However, if such logic is used to deduce a debate on a particular issue, other alterations must also follow. Such changes would include the elimination of appeals to emotion, innuendo, and sanctimonious prattle in congressional debate. "There is no other way to implement an action (i.e. the establishment of laws) without a vote being done. Essentially, since the US is a democratic republic, other forms of decision could be unconstitutional. Like, having only one person decide what is right....The other system is ineffective....It undermines democratic ideals." I negate. There are other ways to establish laws, as to which I will explain. I also concur, that the United States was founded upon democratic republic principles. However, I find this irrelevant. Allow me to explain: as explained in my opening round, I made clear that I was debating that the "act of voting should not be used in the United States House or Senate." Notice how I used the word "should." This word is reminiscent of the fact that, regardless of what method is currently being utilized, something else may be ideal. Quite frankly, simply because past endeavors to establish federal laws in the Untied States have led to the process of voting does not mean that the system is ideal or even infallible. Constitutional boundaries do not set viable parameters for what is ideal at our current time in this country, and therefore the subject of unconstitutionality in a particular form of decision-making is erroneous and invalid in this debate. As a side note, I am not even contending whether my proposed form of decision-making at the federal level is "unconstitutional" or not. I am only arguing here that, whether constitutional or not, it is irrelevant, as long as it is ideal. I am also willing to argue that my proposed view of law establishment at the federal level would likely PROMOTE democratic values. Here is why: as mutual agreement can more readily be met with my proposed system, everyone would have a say, as it is their truths that matter in debate, not their quantities. People can say whatever they want, and that only becomes implemented in the debate, adding to it. Consider this: it is far more likely that one's voice through debate is heard, than one's single vote. "According to [Rousseau's] theory the general will or majority ultimately has the power. A society can only function if there is some sort of power base; in the US that's the congress passing laws by majority vote." Perhaps the majority CAN ultimately have the power, but it does not always have to. This power base, however, can be utilized in a more rational manner; that is, the system I have proposed as an alternative to federal voting. Let us assume, hypothetically, that there is a measure in congress to ban all after-school-activities in the United States. Of course, this would be absurd and spark outrage. Hypothetically, what if this bill passed, and all after-school-activities were made illegal? Does this necessarily mean it is the correct decision? Absolutely not. Obviously, this hypothetical was an extreme, but still, I hope you can get the basic picture of why the correct decision is not always made by the majority. "[Voting] is not a flawed system, it has worked for centuries." Again, I negate. Though it may have "worked" for centuries, it always has the potential, at any given time, to falter, given the nature of the process itself, and produce flawed results. This was evident in my showing that the majority does not always yield ideal, or even accurate, results. The system I have proposed would produce ideal decisions, considering all would agree due to mutual conclusions reached. "Subjectivity is essentially your downfall. There is no way to say what is right. It's up to the people to decide." There leaves no room for subjectivity if all come to mutual agreement and share a common conclusion. Indeed, it is up to congress to determine what is good for the country regarding a particular bill, such as universal health care. By pointing out flaws in the logic of others, and speaking in order to determine truth, mutual agreement can be obtained. For example, if a mutual agreement were obtained in the Senate, it would be similar to a vote of 100-0. There are two main types of truths (i.e. an inherently true or false statement). First, there are those that are known to be either true or false. Second, there are those whose status as true or false is unknown. Of course, some statements may be certainly known to some groups of people, but unknown to other groups. Referring to your trees in the Amazon example, our society knows that it is true/false (obviously being true). Referring to your Chinese example, that would be unknown to our collective society; but still, the Chinese either do or do not, regardless of what others say. It is still, nonetheless, inherent. Simply because a particular culture decides differently does not change the fact. I have already made evident how the correct decision regarding a federal bill should be obtained (i.e. via mutual agreement and shared common conclusion to a debate). What is shown by a majority vote is what is more popular, not necessarily what is right. "Essentially you say debate turns to truth. Well, debates go on for weeks or months in congress before the final vote." Indeed, vigilant debate should be what establishes truth and ultimately the decision upon a particular bill in congress. Debates, however, utilizing a logical course, would be significantly shorter through the elimination of appeals to emotion, innuendo, sanctimonious prattle, and other irrelevant fallacies created by politicians. Ultimately, this would maximize debate efficiency and outcome. I await your rebuttal, Oboeman